occurred.”53 The UN Committee against Torture, in its jurisprudence, has also held that the formal lodging of a complaint of torture or an express statement of intent to sue is not necessary and it is enough for the Victim to bring the facts related to the allegation of torture to the attention of the authorities.54 231. The facts presented in the instant Communication reveal that the Respondent State had ample notice of the alleged torture of the Victim, including the numerous complaints submitted to the Public Prosecutor on the matter, which are corroborated by reports issued by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (2007), Amnesty International (2008), and the FIDH (2010). Additionally, other regional and international bodies, including the Commission, found that persons detained under the Emergency Law have been susceptible to various human rights violations, including to acts of torture and other illtreatment, revealing a pattern of allegations which should have drawn the Respondent State’s attention for action.55 Specifically, the UN Committee against Torture, in its Concluding Observations on the State Report of Egypt in 2002, recommended that Egypt should: “[e]liminate all forms of administrative detention [...] The premises controlled by the State Security Investigation Department should be subject to mandatory inspection, and reports of torture or ill-treatment committed there should be investigated promptly and impartially.56 232. Following his release, the Victim also presented himself before the Office of the Public Prosecutor to follow up on his previous complaints, and the Respondent State then had the opportunity to obtain a statement from the Victim.57 Moreover, even if the Office of the Public Prosecutor was not in a position to initiate investigations, the Office should have referred the Victim to a competent body to investigate the allegations of torture. 233. The Commission reiterates that freedom from torture is a cardinal rule in international law that cannot be derogated from at any time and under any conditions and circumstances including in times of war and emergency.58 As held Principles on Effective Investigation and Documentation, Principle 2. Communication 187/2001 - Mr Dhaou Belgacem Thabti (represented by non-governmental organisation Vérité-Action) v Tunisia, CAT/C/31/D/187/2001, para 10.6. 55 EIPR and Interights v. Egypt (n 38 above), paras 177, 183, 187, 189, 190, 207, 210, 219, 223, and 224. See also, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism Mission to Egypt (14 October 2009), paras 19 – 21, 23; UN Committee against Torture List of issues prior to the submission of the fifth periodic report of Egypt (CAT/C/EGY/5) (13 July 2010) paras 6, 40 – 42; and UN Committee against Torture Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture on Egypt (23 December 2002) paras 5 (c), 5 (f), 5 (h), 6 (a), 6 (f), and 6 (g). 56 UN Committee against Torture Conclusions and recommendations on Egypt (23 December 2002) para 6 (f). 57 The Istanbul Protocol provides that witness and survivor testimony are necessary components in the documentation of torture. It adds that to the extent that physical evidence of torture exists, it provides important confirmatory evidence that a person has been tortured. See Istanbul Protocol, para 161. 58 Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda (2018) ACHPR para 200. 53 54 36